Danozeman
|
| posted on 7/1/10 at 04:44 PM |
|
|
Remember that vid with the people getting out of the sliding car?
Cant seem to find the thread now of that fiesta sliding down the hill where the people got out.
Well this is what happened to it.
Dan
Built the purple peril!! Let the modifications begin!!
http://www.eastangliankitcars.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
eznfrank
|
| posted on 7/1/10 at 04:46 PM |
|
|
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/viewthread.php?tid=127680
|
|
|
iscmatt
|
| posted on 7/1/10 at 04:55 PM |
|
|
i do, and that is very amusing
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 7/1/10 at 05:48 PM |
|
|
I had a near miss today when a car came rolling along a side street with both doors open, only just missin me. it ran across the main road and intothe
trees. a second or two later and it would have hit me.
|
|
|
Benzine
|
| posted on 7/1/10 at 07:57 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by smart51
I had a near miss today when a car came rolling along a side street with both doors open, only just missin me. it ran across the main road and intothe
trees. a second or two later and it would have hit me.
0:30-0:50:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFW6NHbWX0E
|
|
|
phelpsa
|
| posted on 7/1/10 at 09:31 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
owelly
|
| posted on 7/1/10 at 11:08 PM |
|
|
There's a phrase in the European Court that could be used here. It's a phrase that we already use in Health and Safety law and it would
interesting to see if the folks in the sliding Fiesta found a good lawyer and quoted the phrase.
The phrase goes something along the lines of: "Loss caused by an act or omission of a party." Further in the document it explains the
meanings of 'loss' and 'party/parties' and what it is saying, is that if it was reasonable for someone to have intervened to
avoid a situation that lead directly to a loss, than by omitting to do such, makes them liable (or partly liable) for any consequence/s.
Of course as in most cases, it will take a test-case to make such claims stand-up (snigger) and it would then open the flood gates for other such
"ambulance-chaser" solicitors.
But if those pillocks with the camcorder had been in a position to warn the Fiesta folks, then they could be sent down for a ten-year. Possibly.
http://www.ppcmag.co.uk
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 8/1/10 at 09:39 AM |
|
|
That's quite interesting Owelly and could be applied to so many situations. It is perhaps unreasonable to expect a member of the public to
stand outside and warn any motorists that might happen to be passing by. If they were stood on the corner waiting for a lift then it may have been a
different story.
I've noticed a theme lately running through incidents where blame can be apportioned. More and more people want to put some blame on otherwise
uninvolved people and take blame away from morons who jump out of their car at what looks like 5 MPH.
I have no sympathy with people who video car crashes and put them on you tube though.
|
|
|
Vindi_andy
|
| posted on 8/1/10 at 11:02 AM |
|
|
I dont think they would have a leg to stand on legally as, according to the other thread following this, they had been warned by several neighbours
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 8/1/10 at 01:26 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by owelly
But if those pillocks with the camcorder had been in a position to warn the Fiesta folks, then they could be sent down for a ten-year. Possibly.
According to the person that posted the video the retards were warned not to drive and chose not heed this advice.
As for the letter, AFAIK she has no authority to request the video to be removed, same as the people caught on the Police/Camera programs have no
power to stop the film crew recording them. If you are in a public place then you are fair game.
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 9/1/10 at 09:00 PM |
|
|
I'm guessing they saw a rather steep decline and figured it would be better not to be there when that car whalloped whatever was down there...
|
|
|
